The first federal opinion poll of the new year is from Morgan’s face-to-face surveying last weekend, covering 855 respondents. This finds Labor recovering slightly from the previous poll of December 11-12, which on the headline figure had them trailing for the first time in a Morgan face-to-face poll since June 2006. However, Morgan has been somewhat erratic in choosing which of its two-party measures to use for the headline: “preferences distributed by how electors say they will vote”, or “preferences distributed by how electors voted at the 2010 election”. Lately they have been using the former, although the latter is universally recognised as more reliable. The score on the former measure has gone from 51.5-48.5 in favour of the Coalition to 50-50, while on the latter it has shifted more modestly from 50-50 to 50.5-49.5 in favour of Labor. My policy is to ignore the Morgan headline and favour the previous election measure. However, more significant than the distinction between the two is the obvious systematic bias to Labor in Morgan face-to-face polling – once this is factored in, the poll points to a fairly solid lead for the Coalition.
The primary vote figures make clear that the Labor recovery on the headline two-party result is entirely down to a larger share of non-major party voters nominating Labor as the party to which they would direct their preference, which coming from a sample of about 150 is unlikely to be very meaningful. Labor’s primary vote is in fact up by less than the Coalition’s, by half a point to 38.5 per cent, with the Coalition up a full point to 44 per cent. The Greens are down half a point to 13 per cent.
UPDATE (16/1): The first Essential Research for the year finds no change on voting intention whatsoever since December 20: the Coalition leads 52-48 on two-party, with primary votes of 46 per cent Coalition, 38 per cent Labor and 10 per cent Greens. However, Julia Gillard has enjoyed a spike in her personal ratings: approval up eight points to 51 per cent and disapproval down four to 36 per cent (her best figures since July 19), with an increase in her lead as preferred prime minister from 45-34 to 47-32. Tony Abbott’s ratings have improved as well: approval up three to 42 per cent and disapproval down two to 37 per cent. Other questions relate to respondents’ online shopping activities.
Night all.
Dio
I must look out for that book, sounds interesting.
[Which do you want them to do?]
Put the squeeze on Gina and Twiggy, et al.
doyley
agree
dont touch the mrrt
just impose a reconstruction tax
applicable to all big business
ps the financial sector (non bank) would donate
2.5 billion
12.5 bill and counting
pharma packaging/paper chemicals to come
😉
True Puff and that is the other thing they are terrified of – it is the most obvious time to kill off the unnecessary upper class welfare Howard brought in. Most true Libs would be delighted to get rid of the appalling drain on the budget in wasted tax money but cannot dare say so out loud. Labor would actually lose little in the way of votes if it was seen to be necessary. The only ones who would cry foul would are the gluttonous and they vote for the Coalition anyway. Sensibly done it would do a lot for future prosperity and help out with the immediate problems. What do you think Mod Lib?
[Someone in the Labor Government must be sitting down right now and trying to work out where the money is going to come from. That is not politicising, it is common sense.]
Puff:
I reckon that started the minute the PM copped all those silly questions about the budget.
Ron,
Bob is going to say is he….well ok then.
Can you give me the winning numbers for oz lotto tomorrow night while your feeling in a clairvoyant mood?
Sir Michael Somare has had more comebacks than the Seekers did in the 80’s and 90’s.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/17/3114983.htm?section=justin
One thing that interests me is whether those here who view human induced climate change as a reality (or , at least, something to which they attach a high degree of probability), regardless of the party or parties they support, have similar views about the extent to which reduction in greenhouse gases in CO2 equivalent terms is actually required.
Even if people have disagreements about the manner of attaining a reduction, is there at least agreement (from those who are not “climate change sceptics”) about the general extent of reduction required?
The IPCC reports, for example, maintain that the following basic criteria need to be met if we are to keep temperature rises to a maximum of 2 to 2.4ºC:
1: emissions need to be reduced by 50 per cent by 2050
2: global emissions need to peak by 2015 and decline thereafter
3: a target of between 25% and 40% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 is necessary to prevent temperatures from increasing by more than 2ºC
Note that I’m not asking whether people think these should be Australia’s targets, or whether they are economically or socially responsible, but merely whether those who accept the need for action on climate change accept that the IPCC targets present the best current available evidence of what is needed for the effective stabilisation of human induced climate change.
pharma
2.5
pkging/paper
1.5
chemicals
2 billion
18.5 billion
so far
My understanding is the government has significant infrastructure projects already budgeted for. A bit of redirection of funds is possible without causing too much angst.
Anyway, at the moment any discussion on this issue is pure speculation especially with figures of between $5 bill and $20 bill. being thrown about by the MSM economic experts.
These experts must also be scuba diving experts as well to come up with any figure at all.
Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Posted Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
Ron,
THEN ABBOT has every rite to polisise it re NBN as well on that resons puffy
I’m saying they both is crass , using flood tragedy for cynicol motives
“Abbott will do it anyway.
And I do agree that BB should have left out the ‘culprits’ description.
And that Labor can’t raise the idea yet. But someone has to say the bleeding obvious.
But probably not for another couple of weeks. ”
agree , that is what i’m been saying
all policans talk now should on flood victums
Dio:
Earlier today blue-green and Socrates identified possible funders/doers for the recovery. Socrates was of the view that the scope might be beyond local govt, but that the Feds are going to be funders regardless. Both were of the view that roads and bridge building doesn’t offer the same scope for stuff-ups as the Batts! industry did, and hence if the govt has a strong tender process, all should go well.
entertainment/gambling
2.5 billion
Services (non it)
1 billion
Services (it)
1.5 billion
$23.5 BILLION
Property would have to be included in the ag and transport basket
🙁
Gweneth:
[True Puff and that is the other thing they are terrified of – it is the most obvious time to kill off the unnecessary upper class welfare Howard brought in. Most true Libs would be delighted to get rid of the appalling drain on the budget in wasted tax money but cannot dare say so out loud. Labor would actually lose little in the way of votes if it was seen to be necessary. The only ones who would cry foul would are the gluttonous and they vote for the Coalition anyway. Sensibly done it would do a lot for future prosperity and help out with the immediate problems. What do you think Mod Lib?]
I shouldn’t do this as I cant stay long tonight and this may be a bit of a red rag….
But, I disagree with almost everything you have posted recently, except for this bit:
[kill off the unnecessary upper class welfare Howard brought in]
but hey, everyone else is loving your posts Gweneth so I wouldnt lose any sleep over my opinions! I know you wont 🙂
Doyley,
[I think the Governments dance book is full enough without going back on a deal with the mining industry.]
That was before the biggest natural disaster in modern Australian history. Let Twiggy and Gina run ads saying they do not want to contribute to the reconstruction of the country they are happy to dig up to make huge profits from.
We could afford to give our resources away for a pittance. There is a lot of it and our needs were modest. But not any more.
as would hardware and raw materials (building)
Diogenes
Posted Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
“Ron
They either have to reduce spending somewhere, sell off assets, increase taxes or borrow. Which do you want them to do? ”
i can guess diog becuase we dont know either cost or effect on export revenue , and i dont want to be crass at this time either so reluctant i say my guess is ist one against philoshy , not 2nd one counterproductive re jobs & growth already now to be hits , so xpect abit of 3rd one & some savings x defer of some 3 progrms x mining tax
23.5 billion
over
5 years
is $117.5 billion dollars
[Let Twiggy and Gina run ads saying they do not want to contribute to the reconstruction of the country they are happy to dig up to make huge profits from.]
Or they could simply repeat what one of the Qld mining company bosses said in response to Bob Brown: “But, but, but, we’ve already donated $1M to the Premier’s fund!”
Fantastic effort boys.
[confessionsPosted Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:52 pm | PermalinkLet Twiggy and Gina run ads saying they do not want to contribute to the reconstruction of the country they are happy to dig up to make huge profits from.
Or they could simply repeat what one of the Qld mining company bosses said in response to Bob Brown: “But, but, but, we’ve already donated $1M to the Premier’s fund!”
Fantastic effort boys.
]
Twiggy & Gina will use the “What about the WA Flood Victimms” meme.
frank
it is an Australia wide Reconstruction Fund
Funded by a Reconstruction Tax
Puffy
There is a copy at Borders in Adelaide. It’s huge, about 900 pages but it’s brilliant.
[GusfacePosted Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:54 pm | Permalinkfrank
it is an Australia wide Reconstruction Fund
Funded by a Reconstruction Tax
]
They’ll still try and use it.
frank
also could be used as the carrot to impose tougher planning guidelines
I think there will be a lot of flexibility within coming budgets without introducing or raising taxes.
We just have to think outside the square. I like the whole idea of means testing certain areas of welfare. Not what my country can do for me etc.
The government must continue to push the point that the disaster is the biggest that Australia has faced and as such the rebuilding will take years to complete.
The PM has mentioned it and Swan has started to push it as well. This gives them breathing space both in financing and delivery.
Thanks Mod Lib and if two posters is “everyone” then I can see how you get your numbers for the majority of ‘real people’ ideas.
I appreciate that we have that point of agreement. I suspect that you are not alone in Lib land either. And nor should you be – Howard betrayed liberalism big time. I appreciate your honesty.
And no I won’t lose sleep. 🙂
[GusfacePosted Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:55 pm | Permalinkfrank
also could be used as the carrot to impose tougher planning guidelines
]
And another thing – the critics will compare it to the Ansett Levy which didn’t go to their intended targets.
It’s a two-edged sword.
Philip Lasker has shed his glasses 17 days into the new year.
frank
twiggy and gina wont dare touch that button
the game has changed bigtime
as Ron so correctly says, lets focus on the victims
BUT lets also begin the Rebuilding process
not just houses and businesses, but society itself
time to flush Howardism down the drain
Frank
[Twiggy & Gina will use the “What about the WA Flood Victimms” meme.]
And the gov’t says, “They too will be grateful for their allocations of the profits you are going to share with us.”
[Twiggy & Gina will use the “What about the WA Flood Victimms” meme.]
Have either of them said anything about the WA floods yet? It’s been that Catania bloke from what I’ve seen in the media.
It is nearly 11 and still no Newspoll. Can we assume there is not going to be one?
[2532 confessionsPosted Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:57 pm | PermalinkTwiggy & Gina will use the “What about the WA Flood Victimms” meme.
Have either of them said anything about the WA floods yet? It’s been that Catania bloke from what I’ve seen in the media.
]
Their silence has been deafening.
I agree it’s too early to work out costs etc but within three months we should know how much roughly it will take.
Puff @2516,
Fair enough.
I just think there are more creative ways to finance the rebuilding than imposing new taxes.
The money is there. It just needs to be redirected.
Diogenes @2535,
I think that is a realistic timeframe.
Another question.
How much of Fed funding will the Feds control and how much will they give to Bligh to spend, with guidelines in place?
[The money is there. It just needs to be redirected.]
historical low company tax
obscene royalty payments
windfall profits
You jest doyley!!
Time for Big Business to pay the piper
🙁
Firstname Lastname
Posted Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:40 pm | Permalink
“Ron,
Bob is going to say is he….well ok then.”
he already said it
and my bit on nasty Abboiott about nbn bit , he already said it two !
I was simply saying they will push those barrows harder in future , and often
[Have either of them said anything about the WA floods yet?]
That’s the thing with the Aust billionaries they are a miserly bunch of people compared to the one’s in the US who have a much greater focus on philanthropy to the extent they are donating siginficant % of their fortunes. The Aust equivalents are just focused on accumulating more.
Frank:
So if they start arking up now, won’t that be a bit noticeable?
[I agree it’s too early to work out costs etc but within three months we should know how much roughly it will take.]
Time enough to get Big Business paying their FAIR share
Gus,
I think we will just have to look at this from two different angles !
diod
i answer your Q
Rod Hagen
It’s impossible to reject the science on anything but an irrational basis. Same with the economics. I accept the Treasury modelling based on Garnaut and Stern. No-one taken seriously even purports to know better than that work. The longer we wait the more expensive and disruptive it will be for households, communities, industry, and the overall economy. It is writ.
The only figure that has been adjusted since Copenhagen is our 25% by 2020 figure – Garnaut said 12 months ago was now reduced to only 18% because of the commitments made at Copenhagen.
The increasing and already overwhelming evidence on both fronts leaves those who say ‘wait and see’ for political reasons looking as those clueless frogs enjoying the water in a slowly heating saucepan. Suddenly it will be too hot, and too late.
doyley
i come from the bugger struggling to pay rent bills etc
watching the obscene nature of business in australia
They have made theri money from Australia,time to give some back
🙁
Has Frank finally gone to bed?
This board is a better place without his blatant personal attacks on those who don’t agree wtih him.
Ron
Perhaps a one-off 1% increase in the Medcare levy and 1% company tax rate rise on the budget would be the simplest and most painless way. I didn’t like the other options much. I suppose deferring other infrastructure projects is also a smart thing. Let’s face it; there are going to be scrambling to find enough tradies as it is.
evan14 Frank has been fine – are you picking a fight – unnecessary – please don’t.